J Intell Robot Syst DOI 10.1007/s108460109407x
A Hybrid Control Approach for Noninvasive Medical Robotic Systems
Swandito Susanto · Sunita Chauhan
Received: 25 May 2008 / Accepted: 22 February 2010 © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010
Abstract In this paper, a hybrid supervisory control approach adopted for a non invasive medical robot called Focused Ultrasound Surgical Robot—Breast Surgery (FUSBOTBS) is elaborated. The system was built for the use in the breast surgery with high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) as the means of the treatment. A number of different control strategies such as PID and modelbased control were incorporated into a family of controllers to create the hybrid control. Depending on the objective, the supervisory control determines the type of controller used for the specified task so as to maximize the advantages of each of the controllers. Before it was implemented into the actual robotic system the then proposed control approach was modeled and simulated using Matlab®. This control approach was developed based on a review of popular control approaches used in medical robotic systems, in order to look at the feasibility of having a uniform control strategy for a spectrum of medical robotic system. With unified control strategy it is possible to have a safety standard regulation for the medical robotic systems which is currently difficult to be done because of various control strategies adopted by each of the medical robotic systems.
Keywords Hybrid control · Medical robotic systems · Noninvasive surgery · High intensity focused ultrasound
S. Susanto (B) · S. Chauhan
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, 50 Nanyang Avenue, RRC, N301a01, Singapore, Singapore email: swandito@ntu.edu.sg
S. Chauhan
email: mschauhan@ntu.edu.sg, mcsunita@ntu.edu.sg
J Intell Robot Syst
1 Introduction
In the last decade, the development and implementation of minimally invasive and noninvasive surgery methods in the operating room have tremendously changed the ways that conventional surgery was carried out in the past [1, 2]. In a minimally invasive or noninvasive surgery where great accuracy, repeatability, and stability are needed, robotic technologies come in handy. The applications of the robots and computer integration in these methods range from simple robotic arms to highly complex surgical robots [1–3]. However, due to the delicate nature of the surgery, the use of robots is highly restricted in the surgical room. A number a stringent require ments are also imposed to any medical robotic system available and/or under devel opment for safety reasons. Given this fact, numerous studies are done continuously in order to improve the robotic systems. There are many factors that affect the safe operation of medical robots such as design limitations to do complex surgical manoeuvres, malfunction of the system’s components and unpredictability of the working envelope especially for invasive surgical applications. One measure that can be taken in order to improve the safe performance of medical robots given these factors is to have a reliable control system.
Besides being used to move the system along a desired trajectory, control itself serves
a higher purpose such as to ensure the performance and stability of the robot during
operation thus enabling better outcome in its application in surgery. With appropri ate control architecture, a complex movement can be planned and executed more accurately. The errors can be predicted and compensated prior to the application,
and in case of failure, it is possible to force the system to fail in a predicted and safe manner. Hence, devising an optimum control strategy becomes a very important task and should be dedicated to the objectives and design of robotic system [4, 5]. There are a number of medical robotic systems available either in the market or used in research laboratories around the world. Various types of control strategies are adopted by these medical robots [6–11]. However, most of them can be classified into two types of control, modelbased and adaptive control. Some of the medical robots that adopt modelbased control include ROBODOC, a robot for joint replace ment surgery which adopts a force feedback controller with velocity and position reference [6]. Another one is Mitsubishi PA10 robot arm, which is widely used in re search laboratories worldwide for application as robot assisted surgery whose control
is based on torque transmission [7]. Several model based controller approaches have
also been proposed and implemented into robotic system for laparoscopic manipu lation [8]. As for the adaptive control, a robotic prosthetic eye was reported to have used a neural network based control system where array of sensors is used to detect the movement of the natural eye and the control system coordinates the data to give movement to the prosthetic eye accordingly [9]. Each of these medical robotic systems adopts a different control strategy to suit the developer which contributes to the problem of unifying safety standards of medical robotic systems. Safety standard is very important considering the stringent safety requirements put on medical robots. Furthermore a considerable amount of time is needed to develop a control strategy for a robotic system. It is desirable to have a common control approach for medical robots similar to their industrial coun
terpart, for instance proportionalintegralderivative (PID) control is used by about 80% industrial robotic systems available [12].
J Intell Robot Syst
In this paper, an optimal control hierarchy and strategy is proposed for non invasive applications that would help in deducing a unified safety regulation which is highly desirable. Secondly, an optimal control architecture would help in making the development phase of medical robots shorter leading to enhanced usage. A hybrid supervisory control was chosen due to its capability in combining the advantages of more than one control strategies for a particular application. The proposed control approach consists of modelbased robust control and PID control as its parameter ized controllers with a discrete time event controller as the supervisor. The control
was implemented into a noninvasive medical robotic system to justify its feasibility.
In doing so few experimental scenario were also generated. Section 2 of this paper
elaborates the development of the proposed control strategy. The details of the derivation including the simulation are included. In Section 3, the implementation and experimental result of the proposed control strategy is shown. Section 4 gives the summary and conclusion for the applicability of this proposed control approach in achieving the objectives.
2 Control Derivations
2.1 Background
For verification purpose, the hybrid control was implemented into a noninvasive medical robot called FUSBOTBS, devised at the Biomechatronics Group, RRC, NTU, Singapore [13, 14]. As shown in Fig. 1, a part of the robotic system is inside the tank with the HIFU module as its endeffector. An ultrasound imaging probe is located at the centre of the HIFU module and is used for online scanning. There are five axes of movement: vertical axis (VA), rotational axis (RA), horizontal axis (HA), orientation axis (OA), and jig axis (JA), which will be explained further in Section 2.5 (Fig. 5).
2.2 Control Approach for FUSBOTBS System
A hybrid control is characterized by interaction between continuous and discrete
dynamics [15, 16]. The advantage of having a hybrid control is that more than one type of control strategies can be utilized to perform a specific application where in
Fig. 1
FUSBOTBS System
J Intell Robot Syst
that application, each of the subapplication may have different dynamics requiring different control strategies [15, 16]. Depending on its predefined strategy, only one
particular control from a family of controllers will be operating at a time. Thus, the system needs to have a logicbased switcher to change the operating controller at
a specific condition. This switcher, based on its algorithm will switch the operating
controller upon either internal or external event. This predominant logic component
is generally called a supervisor [17, 18]. The logic component could be either one
of the controls implemented into the system or an independent algorithm or even
a human operator. The overall responsibility of a multicontroller supervisor is to
decide when to switch controller (scheduling) and which controller to switch to next (routing) [19]. Among various control approaches, proportionalintegralderivative (PID) was chosen as one of the candidates given its strength such as ease of implementation, able to be implemented into various systems, etc. PID controller is very popular especially for industrial robotic systems. In fact, a wide range of PID controllers and PID tuning software are available in the market. However, even though generally the PID controller can give the desired result in terms of the system’s performance (accuracy, repeatability), it also has some weaknesses especially in the situation where rapid disturbances or timevarying parameters are expected [20, 21]. In a medical environment, rapid disturbances or timevarying parameters may exist due to the presence of human as an operator and as a subject of operation even though other operating condition e.g. position of the robot, room condition remain the same. The possible threat from these unpredictable environments must be mini mized if not eliminated. Thus, having a different control approach either to be imple mented competitively or as complimentary to the PID controller is necessary. Some control approaches from the modelbased control and nonmodel based control are the candidates. The PID control adopted is a nonmodel based PID control. Hence, it is logical to have a modelbased control instead of another nonmodel based control as a comparative or complimentary control approach. Modelbased controls have been proven to be able to give a predictable result to the control objectives (e.g. stability, accuracy) provided that the system’s dynamics is known. Furthermore, most of the medical robotic systems reviewed adopt a modelbased control approach either implemented alone or combined with other control approaches such as PID control approach, showing its wide acceptance among control engineers [12, 20]. In modelling the control system, the most difficult part is modelling the dynamics of the robotic system. Dynamic parameters such as friction, backlash, inertia, Cori olis, etc. mostly are unknown although some of them can be estimated in known situations. Furthermore, system dynamics change over time and thus, it could affect the performance of the control system. Hence, in medical robots where the safety of the patient and the reliability of the robots are highly demanded, dynamics may pose as a big problem. Fortunately, for medical robotic systems, the system dynamics generally remain the same over time (no strong external and internal disturbances) and this makes it suitable for a modelbased controller. During its operation, a medical robotic system most of the time does not repeat the same movement (e.g. the trajectory of the arm) even though the operation procedure may be the same (e.g. moving the arm to the target area). Thus, a nonmodel based control approach such as adaptivelearning control is not suitable for a medical robotic system.
J Intell Robot Syst
2.3 Hybrid Control Modeling
A hybrid system consists of a continuous and a discrete part. In FUSBOTBS, the
continuous part is represented by a set of nonlinear ordinary differential equations (ODE) of the continuous dynamics. On the other hand, the discrete part is described by the discrete event controller which is connected to the system in a feedback
configuration through an interface (i.e. partitioning of its statespace). The math ematical modelling of the hybrid supervisory control of the FUSBOTBS which is shown here is inspired by the modelling developed by Koutsoukos et al. [17], due to
its suitability to the system and relatively simple to be implemented. Figure 2 shows
the general block diagram of the FUSBOTBS hybrid supervisory control. The controller/supervisor is a discrete event system modelled as a deterministic
finite automaton. The automaton is specified by S = ( S, X, R,δ,φ), where S is the set of states obtained from the system states condition (e.g. position, angle, etc.), X is the set of plant symbols generated by the plant, R is the set of controller symbols generated by the supervisor, δ is the state transition function, and φ is the output function. Between the supervisor and the hybrid system, there is an “interface”. The supervisor and the system communicate via the interface which converts the continuous time signal to sequences of symbols understood by the supervisor and vice versa. The interface system consists of generator and actuator subsystem. The generator generates plant symbol to the supervisor upon plant event. On the other hand, actuator converts supervisor’s decision into input signal for the plant [17]. In the case of FUSBOTBS, the plant event is defined by specifying several “hypersurfaces”. Hypersurface refers to the borderline/partitioning line that divides set of state space into few regions. If the state crosses the hypersurface from one partition to another partition which has been predetermined, the event occurs. The hypersurface state is specified based on the error data generated by experimental test with stand alone PID position controller (as explained in Section 2.4). From these data, position and velocity range of the manipulator is partitioned. The variation
of the state variables of the hybrid control strategy is chosen to be “steady state”
Fig. 2
Block diagram of FUSBOTBS hybrid supervisory control
J Intell Robot Syst
variation. In this variation, the values of the state variables at the end of one control section are used as the initial conditions for the following control section. The plant symbol is generated by the interface to the supervisor according to the function shown in the following:
α i : N (h i ) →
X
(1)
where, h _{i} for i = 1, 2, ··· , m is the hypersurface specified by the designer of the system. N(h _{i} ) is the function that correlates the hypersurface with its plant symbol. And the sequence of the plant symbols is described by:
x [n] = α _{i} _{(}_{x} _{(}_{τ} _{e} [n]))
(2)
where (τ _{e} [n]) is the time of the nth plant event, with τ _{e} [0] = 0. After the supervisor receives the plant event symbol from the interface, it will analyze it and then generate supervisor symbol to the interface which in turn will generate appropriate command to the system. In between generation of the two symbols there is a time delay. This is undesirable as it could cause a problem to the controller especially when more than one plant events occur within the period of the time delay. This can be avoided if the supervisor can estimate when the plant event will take place [22, 23]. Once the plant symbol is received by the supervisor, the supervisor determines which controller is suitable for the next system states. Considering the equations
for the nonlinear timeinvariant system expressed by a set of ODE, the system,
·
x = X(x, u,v, t), y = H(x) with control input u, output y, with positioning error
[e _{T} ≈ r − y] where r is reference point, is governed by a hybrid controller with event driven logic switcher. The goal of the logic switcher is to change the controller (generating output [φ]) in order to bring e _{T} ≈ 0. Let p is the ith number of the plant event for i = 1, 2, ··· , m. p is a subset of a function of real, finite number P. X _{E}_{P} denotes the statespace variable at p. For each p ∈ P, e _{p} ≈ y _{p} − y denotes the p output estimation error. π _{p} is the “normed” value of e _{p} or a performance signal, which is used by the supervisor to assess the potential performance of controller p. ^{} s is a switching logic whose function is to determine σ based on the current value of π _{p} . This estimatorbased supervisor from time to time when the plant event occurs selects for candidates’ control signal [ν _{p} ] whose corresponding performance signal π _{p} is the smallest among the π _{p} s, for [ p ∈ P]. Since FUSBOTBS has only two continuous controllers (PID and modelbased) to be chosen it is relatively simpler and fast.
S is the set of states
variables,
the state transition function, and λ is the output function. Since FUSBOTBS has
R is the set of controller symbols, ψ is
The automaton is specified by G = (
X is the set of plant symbols,
S, X, R, ψ, λ), where
only two continuous controllers, the controller symbol is generates two possible outputs to plant which are,
R = {r ,r _{2} }. The actuator
1
λ( r) = ^{−}^{1} ^{i}^{f} ^{}
if
r
r
1
= r
=
_{r} _{} _{2}
1
(3)
In which −1 refers to modelbased robust controller and 1 refers to the PID con troller. After receiving the deciphered supervisor symbol, the plant will implement
J Intell Robot Syst
a suitable controller as instructed by the supervisor. In FUSBOTBS the generator recognizes six plant events in terms of region profile.
h _{1} (x) = x _{1}
h _{2} (x) = x _{2}
h _{3} (x) = −x _{2}
(4)
h _{4} (x) = x _{3} h _{5} (x) = −x _{3} h _{6} (x) = −x _{4}
These events are generated when the endeffector crosses either x _{1} , x _{2} , or x _{3} axis which partitions the x–y plane region of the robot manipulator workspace as shown
in Fig. 3. The negative sign occurs when the state crosses the hypersurface from inside
and vice versa. Symbols generated by the plant are as follows:
α _{2} (x) = x _{2}
α _{4} (x) = x _{3} α _{5} (x) = − x _{3} α _{6} (x) =
x
α _{1} (x) = x _{1}
x
α _{3} (x) = −
4
2
(5)
2.4 PID Gains for the FUSBOTBS System
Different gains were generated through trial and error (heuristic) approach for the PID controller based on its position, velocity, and acceleration profiles. The procedure for gain generation was as follows,
1. All the possible movements of the individual motors were determined,
2. A range of possible distances for each configuration for each of the available possibility in point 1 was defined (e.g. 2,500, 10,000, 50,000 encoder counts, etc). The range of distances was chosen based on the anthropomorphic human data and the common location of the breast cancer occurrences,
3. The tolerable position error and motor stability (by observation) were defined and based on that the PID terms were varied one by one to obtain the optimum PID setup,
4. Using the PID gains obtained, the speed and acceleration were varied. The range of speed and acceleration where the motor can give optimal performance according to the objectives were then determined.
Figure 4a–f show the movement error of each of the axes in various distances using the obtained optimum PID gains. The PID gains generated through the testing and the movement error of each axis with respect to the travel distance for different directions of movement are shown in Fig. 4a–f. Qualitatively there was no instability observed during test movements in
Fig. 3
Annular regions of FUSBOTBS workspace (transverse view)
J Intell Robot Syst
Fig. 4
distance (JA). b Movement errors vs. distance (OA).
c Movement errors vs. distance (HA). d Movement errors vs.
distance VA. e Movement errors vs. distance (RACCW).
f Movement errors vs. distance (RACW)
a Movement errors vs.
a
Travel Distance(mm)
b
Travel Distance (degrees)
c
Travel Distance (mm)
Travel Distance (mm)
Travel Distance (degrees)
J Intell Robot Syst
Fig. 4
(continued)
Travel Distance (encoder counts)
the defined domain. One of the reasons for this might be due to a sufficiently low optimum PID gains. Based on the actual movement errors, it can be found that for certain movements a PID controller is not sufficient to give the accuracy needed, for instance, the rotational axis as shown in Fig. 4f doesn’t satisfy the required accuracy of system. Thus, for such cases there is a need to minimize its inaccuracy to acceptable tolerance level.
2.5 Modeling of the FUSBOTBS System
In order to derive the modelbased control, the kinematics and dynamics of the system need to be modeled. For derivation of kinematics equations of the FUSBOT BS system, modified Denavit–Hartenberg (DH) method was adopted [24, 25]. DH has become the standard robot kinematics model because of its physical interpreta tion, strict definition and multiplicative structure. Figure 5 shows the modified DH coordinate systems. The transformation matrix from the base of the robot to the end effector can be derived by multiplying all of the transformation matrices from the first joint to the last joint. The expression for the transformation T, can be written as:
T
End−effector
Base
^{=}
⎡ θ 4 ) −C (θ 2 + θ 4 ) 0
⎢
⎢ 01 − (r _{1} + r _{2} + r _{3} + r _{4} )
⎣ 00
S (θ _{2} +
d
2
0
1
C
(θ _{2} + θ _{4} )
0
0
S (θ _{2} + θ _{4} )
0
⎤
⎥
⎥ (6)
_{⎦}
where, S stands for Sine, C stands for cosine, θ is the angular displacement, d is the linear distance and r is the linear displacement. In order to mathematically describe the dynamic properties of a manipulator, a classical method from analyses of mechanics, Lagrange equation of motion, was chosen due to its simplicity and systematic nature [26]. There are two types of models, which are differential model and integral model. The first model requires the measurement of positions, velocities and accelerations while the latter only requires the measurement of positions and velocities [26, 27]. The differential model was adopted and the system’s dynamics is derived using the generalized notion of relative position and orientation between links according to the
J Intell Robot Syst
Fig. 5
FUSBOTBS
Line diagram of
X
d 2
O
XZ  Plane
modified DH parameters. Lagrange equation in generalized Lagrange coordinates for a kinematics chain can be written as [27]:
d
∂L _{−} ∂L
dt dq˙ _{i}
dq
i
= τ _{i} − Q _{i} q _{i}
·
(7)
where τ _{i} is the generalized force/moment which acts along the z _{i} axis of the ith coordinate frame, L is the Lagrange function (the difference between total kinetic
and potential energy of a manipulator), and Q _{i} q _{i} is the friction force acting on the
ith joint. Q _{i} q _{i} can be calculated from:
·
·
Q i ^{q} i = F iv
·
q _{i} + F _{i}_{s} sgn q _{i}
·
·
(8)
where, F _{i}_{v} is the viscous friction coefficient of the ith link while F _{i}_{s} is the coefficient of the Coulomb friction. The generalized coordinate which describes the movement of the ith link is denoted by q _{i} , and it can be calculated as:
q _{i} = (1 − σ _{i} )θ _{i} + σ _{i} a _{i}
(9)
where σ _{i} = 0 if the joint i is rotational and σ _{i} = 1 if joint i is translational. Some of the actuators of FUSBOTBS are not directly coupled to their respective motors. Instead, they are connected to belt chains. Thus, FUSBOTBS is classified under a class of geared robots. Aside from dealing with the dynamics of friction which
J Intell Robot Syst
is also found in the direct drive robots, geared robots have to deal with transmis sion dynamics too. The friction force is hardly linear and in order to identify the coefficient of frictions, identification testing is needed. It is highly difficult to achieve an accurate dynamic model with the entire dynamics variables and its nonlinearity. Fortunately, some of the variables is less significant, thus can be eliminated and some can be linearized or treated as constant. Following are certain assumptions made for FUSBOTBS differential model:
1. Dynamics of transmissions are neglected.
2. Gear ratios are constant.
3. Friction force acting at a joint is linear with respect to the viscous friction coefficient and coulomb friction coefficient.
4. The robot model is canonical.
The Lagrange function of a manipulator can be calculated as [27]:
(10)
L = E _{K}_{c} − E _{P}_{c}
where, E _{K}_{c} is the total kinetic energy and E _{P}_{c} is the total potential energy. The LaGrange equation for the FUSBOTBS system can be written as:
τ _{1} = (m _{1} + m _{2} + m _{3} + m _{4} ) q _{1} − (m _{1} + m _{2} + m _{3} + m _{4} ) g _{0} + F _{1}_{v} q _{1} + F _{1}_{s} sgn
··
·
τ 2 =
··
^{}^{}^{} I 2zz + η ^{2} I m2 ^{} + ^{} I 3yy + η ^{2} I m3 ^{} + ^{} I 4zz + η ^{2} I m4 ^{} + 2q 3 ^{3} c z ^{} ^{q} 2
+ ^{} m _{4} ^{4} c _{x} Cq _{4} − 
m _{4} ^{4} c _{y} Sq _{4} + ^{3} c _{x} ^{} 
− ^{} m _{4} ^{4} c _{y} Cq _{4} + 
m _{4} ^{4} c _{x} Sq _{4} + ^{3} c _{x} ^{} 
··
^{q} 3 + ^{} I 4zz + η ^{2} I m4 ^{}
··
q _{4} + 2 ^{3} c _{z}
·
·
^{q} 3 ^{q} 4 + F 2v
q _{2} + F _{2}_{s} sgn
·
^{q} 2
·
·
·
^{q} 2 ^{q} 3
··
τ _{3} = ^{} ^{3} c _{x} − m _{4} ^{4} c _{y} Sq _{4} ^{} q _{2} + ^{} m _{3} + m _{4} + m _{4} ^{4} c _{x} Cq _{4} ^{}
··
^{q} 3
+ ^{} −m _{4} ^{4} c _{y} Sθ _{4} + 2m _{4} ^{4} c _{x} Cθ _{4} ^{}
··
q _{4} − m _{4} ^{4} c _{y} Cq _{4}
^{2} 
^{2} 

· 
· 
− ^{3} c _{z} q _{2} + ^{} m _{4} ^{4} c _{y} Cq _{4} −
2m _{4} ^{4} c _{x} Sq _{4} ^{}
^{q} 4 + F 3v
·
^{q}
2
·
q _{4} − m _{4} ^{4} c _{x} Sθ _{4}
q _{3} + F _{3}_{s} sgn
·
^{q} 3
·
·
·
^{q} 3 ^{q} 4
τ 4 = ^{} I 4zz + η ^{2} I m4 ^{}
··
q _{2} + ^{} 2m _{4} ^{4} c _{x} Cq _{4} − m _{4} ^{4} c _{y} Sq _{4} ^{}
··
··
^{q} 3 + ^{} I 4zz + η ^{2} I m4 ^{} ^{q} 4
−
^{} m _{4} ^{4} c _{y} Cq _{4} + 2m _{4} ^{4} c _{x} Sq _{4} ^{}
·
·
^{q} 3 ^{q} 4 + F 4v
q _{4} + F _{4}_{s} sgn q _{4}
·
·
^{q} 1
·
(11)
where m _{i} ^{i} c _{i} is the first moment of ith link, g _{0} is the gravitational constant, q is the
·
··
generalized joint coordinates, q is the generalized joint velocity, q is the generalized joint acceleration, η is the inertia ratio, and ^{i} I _{i} is the (3 × 3) vector of inertia of the ith link.
2.6 Dynamics Parameters Identification
For the modelbased control the identification or a good approximation of the dynamics parameters is of significant importance. Some dynamics parameters (e.g. inertia) can be easily calculated and some such as friction and beam effect parameters need to be validated through experiments. These dynamics were modelled and
J Intell Robot Syst
validated due to their significant effects on the accuracy and movement of the manipulator. The nominal parameters such as the friction parameters are obtained from experiments with respect to the system’s dynamics mentioned in Section 2.5. The experiments are designed in such a way that the desired dynamics parameters could be excited at a given time while keeping other parameters constant. A number of experiments were done for each of the dynamic parameters obtain for more accurate results.
2.6.1 Friction Modeling
Friction is a common phenomenon that occurs in any mechanical system. It is unde sirable in most of the cases because it causes errors in position and induces tracking inaccuracy. In modelling the friction, there are two widely used models, static friction model and dynamic friction model [28, 29]. In a static friction model, the friction is modeled into few different components such as coulomb friction, viscous friction, stiction and Stribeck with each of the components representing different aspects of the friction force. On the other hand, in the dynamic friction model, instead of having linear or constant friction components, its friction changes as a function of variations in temperature, position, etc. Dynamics model has an advantage in terms of its preciseness compared to the static model especially when the variation of the variables is significant during the operation of the mechanical systems. However, it has to be noted that with the increasing complexity of the dynamic friction model there is a consequent increase in the computational complexity. Furthermore, in a lot of cases, static friction model is more than enough to give the estimation of the friction in a system [29, 30]. LuGre model of the dynamic friction model was chosen due to its completeness and reasonable complexity compared to other friction models [28]. In fact it is the most widely used model for modelling friction in mechanical systems. LuGre dynamic friction model can be reduced to static friction model by omitting the dynamic parameters from its equation [28]. For FUSBOTBS system, the LuGre model used is the static LuGre model where the dynamic parameters were excluded. One of the reasons for this type of the LuGre model to be chosen is that the friction is affected by a number of nonlinear dynamic parameters. Hence, it is difficult to model every parameter accurately and since FUSBOTBS system operates in a stable environment, most of the nonlinear dynamics parameters such as the tem perature, position of the system have little or no significant change. The parameter identification procedure of the LuGre model is based on similar friction parameters identification as reported in [28, 30] and is elaborated in the following. The general LuGre model is linearized by giving it a linear viscous friction and constant damping which is called “standard parameterization” and has the form,
dz
g
_{d}_{t}
(v)
F
=
v − σ _{0}
v
_{(}_{v}_{)} z
g
=
α _{0} +
= σ _{0} +
α _{1} e ^{−}^{(}^{v}^{/}^{v} ^{0} ^{)} ^{2}
·
σ _{1} z +α _{2} v
(12)
(13)
(14)
where denotes the average bristle deflection which is determined by the velocity. Bristle deflection in this case refers to the force that originates from the random
J Intell Robot Syst
distribution of interacting asperities on a surface. is the velocity, is the stiffness coefficient of the microscopic deformations of during the presliding displacement of the bristles, is the damping coefficient associated with, model the Stribeck effect, is the Coulomb friction force, corresponds to stiction force, is viscous friction, and is the Stribeck velocity. From Eqs. 12, 13, and 14, the steadystate friction characteristics for constant velocity motions are given by,
F _{s}_{s} = α _{0} + α _{1} e ^{−} ^{(} ^{v} ^{/} ^{v} ^{0}^{)} ^{2} sgn (v) + α _{2} v
(15)
The Eq. 15 is characterized by four static parameters (α _{0} , α _{1} , α _{2} , v _{0} ) which were estimated from the experimental data. The manipulator motions were performed under constant velocity, in which the input torque values were recorded. The friction velocity data were then obtained from averaging those data using Eq. 8. Different constant velocity values ranging from −15 to 15 mm/s for linear motion and −15 ^{◦} /s to 15 ^{◦} /s for rotational motion were used with at least 20 data points collected. This was done in order to identify closely the Stribeck velocity, Coulomb and Stiction friction force. The equations for frictionvelocity graph are as follows [28]:
min
α _{0} , α _{1} , α 2 , v 0
J
^{d} ^{2} ^{x} dt ^{2}
= u − F
n
i=1
^{} F ss (v i ) −
F _{s}_{s} (v _{i} ) ^{} ^{2}
(16)
(17)
where, J is the total motor and load inertia, x is the position, v = dx/dt is the velocity, u is the DC motor torque, F is the friction torque, F _{s}_{s} (v _{i} ) are the friction values measured during constant velocity (u _{s}_{s} = F _{s}_{s} ) at velocities v _{i} , and F _{s}_{s} (v _{i} ) is given as,
F _{s}_{s} = α _{0} + α
v
1 _{e} − _{(} v _{/}
^{0}^{)} ^{2} sgn (v) + α _{2} v
(18)
Matlab (version 7.0) was used to find out the four static parameters (α _{0} , α _{1} , α _{2} , v _{0} ) of Eq. 15. Using Matlab optimization toolbox, the static parameters of the friction model were calculated by minimizing the Eq. 15. An initial solution of zero was used for each of the linear variables for initial datum. The optimization function found the closest variables to minimize the function. These nominal values obtained were used in the control as the nominal static friction parameters. The frictions vs. velocity graphs are shown by Fig. 6a and b. The nominal friction parameters for each of the subsystems are listed in Table 1. In Table 1, v < 0 and v > 0 represents the negative and positive velocity/direction respectively. It was noticed that the Stribeck effect was very small and thus was taken as zero. The friction forces of the axes with respect to the velocities are shown in Fig. 6a and b. The general graphs after smoothing (curve fitting) were found to be similar to stiction + coulomb + viscous friction graph (Fig. 6c). As can be seen from Fig. 6a and b, for FUSBOTBS system, the direction of the manipulator’s motion has little or no effect towards the value of absolute friction forces value.
2.6.2 Backlash Modeling
The backlash for each of the gears mechanism used in the system was found through manual calculation from the technical specification of the gears provided by the
J Intell Robot Syst
Fig. 6
graph for VA, HA and JA. b Friction–velocity graph for RA and OA. c Combined general friction model for static, coulomb and viscous friction
a Friction–velocity
a
Velocity (mm/s)
Velocity (deg/s)
Table 1
Nominal friction parameters
Friction 
Vertical axis 
Rotational axis 
Horizontal axis 
Orientation axis 
Jig axis 

parameter v < 0 
v < 0 
v < 0 
v < 0 
v < 0 
v < 0 
v < 0 
v < 0 
v < 0 
v < 0 

α _{0} (V) α _{1} (V) α _{2} 
0.711 
0.9027 
0.439 
0.3912 
0.1796 0.2421 
−2.119 
−1.408 
−1.8046 −1.330 

−1.761 
0.4473 −0.899 
0.1878 −0.4294 0.0079 
−1.081 
4.208 
−1.3964 
3.730 

0.0064 0.0019 
0.0026 0.003 
0.0007 0.0012 
0.0065 
0.0051 
0.0165 
0.0133 

(Vs/ec*) v _{0} (ec*/s) 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
ec* encoder counts
J Intell Robot Syst
manufacturer. This was later confirmed through experimental means from the input and actual movement graph. A very small input (in terms of encoder counts) was given to each of the motors and was increased until the movement can be seen from the corresponding subsystem. In order to achieve an accurate measurement several tests were done and the results were averaged. The mean value from both theoretical and experimental tests was then calculated for each of the subsystems (Table 2).
2.6.3 Cantilever Beam Ef fect Modelling
The HA module is supported at one end of the module while the other end is unsupported. Thus HA shaft may behave like a cantilever beam. The deflection of the HA shaft is expected due to the weight of the endeffector module during its movement to the extreme end on the unsupported side of HA. This deflection will affect the accuracy of the system and therefore requires to be compensated (Fig. 7). The value of deflection (in millimeter) against the endeffector distance from the central axis is shown in Fig. 5. The value was obtained through experimental means where the height of the endeffector was measured against a fixed coordinate system for some points along the horizontal axis. A polynomial curve was set to fit all the measured points. The bending of the shaft affected the accuracy in vertical and horizontal planes. However, the error due to bending was only compensated in vertical direction since the error in the horizontal direction was very small even at the extreme end of the axis (<<0.01 mm).
2.7 Modeling and Simulation of FUSBOTBS Control System
Matlab software developed by MathWorks, Inc. was used for simulation of the proposed control strategy which was subsequently implemented into the FUSBOT BS. There are several stages in system simulation which include, building the user interface, modelling of the system structure and modelling of the control strategy. These stages were implemented by using various Matlab toolboxes. In this section, the system modelling and its results are presented. Graphical User Interface (GUI) allows the user to choose the type of controller to be used and to give certain inputs to the control, such as the gains for PID controller. The GUI provides an easy layout for user to specify certain inputs to the Matlab model for both the test system specifications as well as the intended control approach. The second stage is numerical modelling of FUSBOTBS where the kinematics, dynamics and control strategies are modelled using the modelling blocks provided by SimMechanics and Simulink toolboxes and through the mfiles of Matlab (version 7.0).
Table 2
parameters
Nominal backlash
Axis 
Backlash width (encoder counts) 
Vertical axis 
127 
Rotational axis 
216 
Horizontal axis 
232 
Orientation axis 
222 
Jig axis 
218 
J Intell Robot Syst
Distance (mm)
The system is divided into five subsystems. Each of the first four subsystems correspond to the number of DOFs namely VA, RA, HA, and OA. The last sub system is the endeffector module. Individual links and their joints are modelled accordingly including the sensors and the drive as can be seen in Fig. 8. The properties of the model were generated by Pro/E (based on its exact part model created in Pro/E space). The properties include the mass, centre of gravity (CG) and inertia tensor of the actual part with respect to its CG or a chosen coordinate system for control modelling purpose and could be obtained by precise modelling of the parts and inputting the available information of the part (such as the material used for each of the respective parts and their material properties). Machine visualization as generated by Matlab is shown in Fig. 9. The body blocks, coordinate frames, CGs, etc. are shown in different shade. The dynamics model of the FUSBOTBS was modelled using Simulink blocks based on the derivation as elaborated earlier. By using the Matlab model, the actual
Fig. 8
SimMechanics blocks for FUSBOTBS base subsystem
J Intell Robot Syst
Fig. 9
simulation structures
FUSBOTBS
end position of the endeffector after a series of movements, given specific inputs, could then be predicted. Thus, based on this information, the actual required torque can be calculated and means can be derived to compensate the dynamic errors. Matlab robust control toolbox was used in the robust controller modelling and performance analysis of the axis [31]. It was inspired by the method developed by Gu, Petkov and Konstatinov for general mechanical system [32]. For robust control derivation, finding the control’s stabilization parameters is the most crucial part [34]. Assessment of the controller was done by using frequency response analysis with robust performance and robust stability as the main focus in accessing the controller. As each of the axes is similar and cascaded in structure and each of them is having its own control input, a control simulation for one axis is similar for the rest of the sub systems with little modifications such as the value used for the weighting functions and the possible perturbation parameters. Based on the kinematics and dynamics derivation for the FUSBOTBS given in Section 2.5, the robust controller derived for the base subsystem is presented in the following. The general expression of the dynamics of the system’s axis as derived in Section 2.5:
·· 
· 
· 
· 

A ^{} q ^{} q +B ^{} q ^{} 
q 
q +C ^{} q ^{} q ^{2} + G ^{} q ^{} + τ _{f}_{v} + 
τ _{f}_{s} = τ 
(19) 
where q is the (nx1) vector of generalized joint coordinates, A is the (nxn) manipu
lator inertia matrix, B is the (nx(n(n − 1)/2) Coriolis coefficient matrix and C is the (nxn) centrifugal coefficient matrix, G is the (nx1) vector of gravitational forces, τττ _{f}_{v} is the (nx1) viscous friction, τττ _{f}_{s} is the (nx1) Coulomb friction, τ is the vector of joint control input torques to be designed.
J Intell Robot Syst
Despite the intensive measurements and tests, the physical parameters of the system can not be known exactly. Thus, approximation of the parameterized uncer tainties was introduced to the axis at certain intervals as:
(20)
where, m _{c} ,α _{2} , k are the nominal values of the m _{c} , α _{2} , and k. p _{m} , p _{α}_{2} , p _{k} and δ _{m} , δ _{α}_{2} , δ _{k} represent the degree of possible perturbations on the dynamics parameters. In this case, a nominal value of 0.2 was chosen for the uncertainty ( p) while possible perturbations were chosen to be −1 ≤ δ ≤ 1. These values were chosen by approximation based on the degree of preciseness in modelling the system. The block diagram of the FUSBOTBS VA with the upper LFT blocks of uncertain parameters is shown by Fig. 10. It is derived based on the base subsystem’s dynamics (such as the inertia, friction) as represented by Eq. 19. The transfer function matrix G _{f}_{b}_{s}_{1} in Fig. 11 represents the nominal transfer function of the base subsystem including model uncertainties. Δ is unknown, but is assumed to be stable because it is parameterized and satisfies the condition A _{∞} < 1. d is the external disturbances acting on the system. The transfer functions from d to e as depicted by Eq. 19 have to be small in terms of the norm ( · _{∞} ) for every possible uncertainties represented by matrix Δ.
m _{c} = m _{c} (1 + p _{m} δ _{m} ) ;
α _{2} = α _{2} (1 + p _{α}_{2} δ _{α}_{2} ) ;
k = k (1 + p _{k} δ _{k} )
^{} e p
e
u
=
p ^{} I + G fbs1 K ^{} ^{−}^{1}
W
W _{u} K ^{} I + G _{f}_{b}_{s}_{1} K ^{}
_{−}_{1} d
(21)
The block diagram of the VA with modelbased controller and associated uncertain ties is shown in Fig. 11. The input to the transfer matrix G _{f}_{b}_{s}_{1} has five elements in it (three input uncertainty parameters, external disturbance and control) and the output has six elements in it (three output uncertainty parameters, system error e _{p} , control error e _{u} and controller input). The value of the weighting function was obtained through trial and error. Finding the value for the weighting functions is a crucial step in designing a robust controller especially in a complex system. There is no unique solution to the weighting functions. The number of trials done and the experience of the control engineers are contributing factor in choosing a good weighting function value. For the VA, the μsynthesis was done using DK iteration method of robust controller due to its simplicity and good performance. Following the closedloop structure of the VA as shown in Fig. 11, P(s) denotes the transfer function of the
Fig. 10
base subsystem with uncertain parameters
Block diagram of the
J Intell Robot Syst
Fig. 11
closedloop structure
Base subsystem
matrix system G _{f}_{b}_{s}_{1} with five inputs and six outputs. The block structure of P(s), which is _{F} , can be written as follows:
_{p} := ^{} 0
^{0} _{F} : ∈ ^{3}^{×}^{3} , _{F} ∈ C ^{1}^{x}^{2}
(22)
The uncertainty block represents the uncertainties of the parameters in the dynamics modelling of the system, the second block _{F} is the fictitious uncertainties block introduced to represent the performance requirement for the μsynthesis of the robust controller. Following that, an optimization to reduce the maximum value of μ is derived as follows:
min
K
stabilizing
min
D _{l} (s), D _{r} (s) ^{} D _{l} (s) F _{L} (P, K) D
stable,min .phase
−1
r
(s) ^{} ^{} _{∞}
(23)
D _{l} (s) =
⎡
⎢
⎢
⎣
d _{1} (s)
00
0
0
000
0
0
d _{2} (s)
d _{3} (s)
0
0
0
d _{4} (s) I _{2}
⎤
⎥
_{⎦} D _{r} (s) =
⎥
⎡
⎢
⎢
⎣
d _{1} (s)
00
0
0
000
0
0
d _{2} (s)
d _{3} (s)
0
0
0
d _{4} (s) I _{2}
⎤
⎥
⎥
⎦
where, d _{1} (s), d _{2} (s), d _{3} (s), d _{4} (s) are the scaling transfer functions. μsynthesis is about finding the smallest construction of stabilizing controller K in which the desired performance can be achieved over a range of frequencies. This can be obtained provided the following conditions are satisfied:
μ _{P} ^{} F _{L} ( P, K)( jw) ^{} < 1
(24) 

< 1 
(25) 
W p ^{} I + F U ^{} G fbs1 , ^{} K ^{} ^{−}^{1}
W _{u} K ^{} I + F _{U} ^{} G _{f}_{b}_{s}_{1} , ^{} K ^{}
−1 ^{} ∞
The μsynthesis using DK iteration was executed by using Matlab Robust Control Toolbox. Table 3 shows the summary of the μcontroller DK iteration. At the third iteration, the peakvalue of μ was equal to 0.983 for frequency range of 10 ^{−}^{2} –10 ^{4} . The peakvalue of μ is smaller than one indicating that the system is able to achieve
Table 3 μController DK iteration summary
DK iteration summary
Iteration number Controller order Total Dscale order Gamma achieved Peak μ value 
1 
2 
3 
4 
14 
16 

0 
10 
12 

11.136 
1.021 
0.983 

2.613 
1.019 
0.983 
J Intell Robot Syst
Fig. 12
Nominal and robust performances of the μcontroller
the required robust performance using the chosen controller (Eq. 24). The μ value is achieved by sixteenth order controller which is pretty high. As one of the objectives of the controller is to find the simplest and smallest stabilizing parameters, there is a need to reduce the order of the controller to simplify the computations.
2.8 Analysis of Robust Performance of the Controller
Once the controller is derived, its robust stability and performance need to be assessed. The robust stability of the controller is shown in Fig. 12. From the figure, it can be seen that the μcontroller was robust and stable and Eq. 24 was satisfied. The
Fig. 13
Base subsystem performances with μcontroller
J Intell Robot Syst
performance of the system with controller is shown in Fig. 13 and it can be seen that the robust performance was achieved by the system as the magnitude of the left hand side of Eq. 25 was below the criterion (in this case is 1) over the specified frequency range. The controller order at the third iteration was sixteen which was required to be reduced while retaining the controller’s performance. In the case of the base sub system, the controller order could be reduced to fourth order by utilizing the Matlab robust control toolboxes using the Hankelnorm approximation [31]. The fourth order controller was able to give a similar performance as the sixteenth order.
3 Testing, Result and Discussion
3.1 Experimental Procedure
The existing control software system for the FUSBOTBS system comprises:
1. Robot trajectory control
2. Image capture and display
3. HIFU control
The source code of the software system was written using Microsoft Visual C++ (MSVC). The program for robot motion comprises of few clusters.
1. Initialization where the robot axes are initialized and moved to the home position, setting the motion parameters such as the default speed of the motor and the PID default parameters
2. User selects treatment points through the user interface.
3. The robot guides the endeffector based on the point(s) selected on images mapped to robotic workspace. Robot movement and treatment points are closed loop which cease to move under user instruction.
In the robot movement cluster, the modified control is added. The user is able to choose whether to apply the default PID control, modelbased control or the Hybrid control (which consist of PID and modelbased control as explained in the previous section). For C++ and Matlab interfacing, appropriate files and their associated library were included. For online computation, the time delay for the movement to take place should be minimized. The general block diagram of the system’s architecture showing the interaction between the software, hardware and instrumentation is shown in Fig. 14. The user selects the target point, treatment method, etc. from the GUI. The images shown in the GUI are generated by the imaging system comprising of a camera and imaging software as explained later in this section. Once the target and treatment method are selected the control software will make necessary computation and moves the robot manipulator to complete the specified task. In order to analyze the performance of the hybrid supervisory controller, experimental testing was done. A number of sets of predefined movement in all of the four axes (VA, RA, HA and OA) were planned. These include different speeds, directions and the range of motion. The parametric values were chosen based on the
J Intell Robot Syst
Fig. 14
Computational
Image
Control
Hybrid
Supervisory
Control
Ref: Fig. 2
HIFU
Control
Hardware
Block diagram of the robotic system’s architecture
kinematics structure and workspace constraints of the manipulator. In the test different combinations of the parameters and their value were used for different motion. In order to measure the actual physical movement of the endeffector an imaging system was employed. The imaging system used a camera (Intellicam [33]) to provide real time images of the robot’s motions which were then captured by a customized imaging software. The camera was secured to a platform at a predefined mounting position based on a fixed set of reference points. The positions of the endeffector before and after the movement were recorded. The measurements of the axes move ment were performed digitally using the images for accuracy and stability analysis. Calibration was performed before every test to ensure its accuracy. The actual movements of the endeffector measured from the images were then compared with the simulation results of the FUSBOTBS for the same input. Figure 15 shows the schematic diagram of the experimental testing.
Fig. 15
the of the test measurement method
Schematic diagram of
J Intell Robot Syst
3.2 Experimental Results
Test Number
The outcomes of the accuracy test for each axis are shown in Figs. 16, 17, and 18. It can be seen that in terms of accuracy, all of the axes of the manipulator are able to give a good performance. The absolute errors are less than 0.5 mm for combined VA, RA and HA axes, less than 0.35 degree for orientation axis and less than 0.3 mm for imaging axis, when the modelbased control was applied. All of the errors are well within the tolerable error (which is less than 0.5 mm every axis) for the FUSBBOT BS system which uses 1 to 2 MHZ ultrasound transducer as its treatment probe. This is due to the resolution limitation of the probe itself. There are some outliers e.g. Fig. 16 point number 19 which might be due to some “hiccups” such as measuring error or direct disturbance to the system either from internal (e.g. electrical power inconsistency) or external (e.g. human measurement error) factors during the testing. However, such occurrences are statistically insignificant (2 out of 90 points) and thus the outliers can be safely neglected. The comparison of the PID control and the modelbased control in terms of the accuracy in inner and outer region are shown in Fig. 19, 20, and 21. For the combined VA, RA and HA axes of the manipulator (Fig. 19), modelbased control proved to be better in terms of achievable accuracy. Especially because of the vertical axis where there is a slug when the break is released due to the weight of the manipulator, this can be well compensated by the modelbased control. Similarly for the distant points (outer region of the workspace), modelbased outperformed the nonmodelbased PID control by giving about 30% more accurate results. Figure 20 shows the comparison of control approaches for the orientation axis. Overall both controls can be used since the errors are well within the tolerance (less than 0.5 mm). However for the inner region, PID control performs better than the modelbased. This might be due to some assumptions in the derivation of dynamics,
Test Number
J Intell Robot Syst
J Intell Robot Syst
because in the inner region some dynamics parameters such as gravity is modeled as having little or no significant effects but in real practice the assumption might not be true. For imaging axis (Fig. 21), the dynamics has little effect in the inner region thus, PID and modelbased performed similarly well. However, for the outer region, modelbased control performs better due to its rigorously modeled dynamics. Overall, the performance of the modelbased control is better compared to the PID control. “Inner” refers to the inner circular region (color green) of the manipulator workspace. “Outer” refers to the centre and outer circular region (color yellow and red) of the manipulator’s workspace (Fig. 3). “Overall” refers to the combined inner and outer. In terms of repeatability, a very good performance is achieved with absolute errors less than 0.1 mm. From the tests it was concluded that for the outer region, model based is a good choice and for inner region PID should be chosen due to its good performance and less computation. Hybrid controller is able to make use of any of these types of controllers within the specified workspace’s region. Thus, it is able to get the best out of the two controllers for better overall system performance.
4 Discussions
In the hybrid approach, the choice of the control scheme is based on the surgi cal protocol since the type, extent and sequence of movements are different for specific application scenarios. In certain cases, the trajectory planning and boundary conditions may involve replaceable endeffectors. For instance, in the FUSBOT BS system, different workspace limits (please refer to Fig. 3) cater to different applications: inner annulus for breast surgery and outer ones for transabdominal reach. For each scenario, a suitable control approach under the family of controllers is used. Based on the results presented in the previous section (Fig. 4), the PID approach from the hybrid controller is chosen for breast application. However, for the abdominal configuration, the endeffector has to go to the extreme end of the available workspace, where as indicated in the experiments, the centre of gravity and cantilever beam effect have significant contributions to the performance of the system. Thus, in this case the modelbased approach is more suitable and would be automatically chosen by the hybrid controller. Test Results of Fig. 22 shows that the inaccuracy is less than the error tolerance. It also proves the earlier claim that the hybrid control works well for robotic system with more than one system’s dynamics (for example system with more than one configuration or working in two or more different environments). The controller parameters were obtained through simulation and experimentally tested for the system. The outcome was then used to refine the control parameters until certain performance standards (e.g. accuracy and repeatability) were achieved. Furthermore it was necessary that the experiments were done in such a way that the parameters to be obtained could be excited, while having the other variables kept constant and/or zero. The application and hence the configuration can be predefined in the planning stage before the surgery. However, in a possible scenario of a single application using more than one annulus as well as parametric classification of system dynamics,
J Intell Robot Syst
Fig. 22
different FUSBOTBS
configurations
Error analysis of
Error Measurement for Application Oriented Configurations
Configuration
the type of controller needs to be chosen automatically in real time application. The added value of hybrid control approach is thus switching between appropriate controllers by exploiting their relative advantage to improve the performance. Secondly by having more than one controller, it can be extended for wider range of application scenarios without having to change the basic configuration and control architecture completely. One of the main concerns in designing a controller is the stability of the controller or the system, in general. For this particular control strategy the concern was emphasized on the switching event when the parameterized controller is changed according to the supervisory control decision. The possible instability due to this reason was unproven during the experiments and simulations. This might be due to the simplicity of the supervisory control and small number of “plant events” and parameterized controllers used. An increase in the number of the “plant events” and parameterized controllers and their effect to the system instability would be interesting to be studied further. The weighting (gain) parameters have to be chosen carefully in order to achieve the robust performance of the controller and the system. Tuning experiences of the control engineers and the amount of ‘trial and errors’ done are few factors that contribute to finding a set of robust control parameters that could give good performance.
5 Conclusions
In this paper a common and optimal control hierarchy and strategy is proposed for noninvasive medical robotic systems. In terms of safety, there are many factors which contribute to the safety of the robot such as the mechanical design of the ma nipulator, the type of controller, the electronic hardware and trajectory planning for failsafe software design, etc. Control is one of the significant factors in determining the safe performance of the robot. Medical applications demand complex protocols and optimal trajectory selections, which may involve hybrid configurations. In this paper, a hybrid supervisory control is presented. Using the FUSBOTBS system as the testbed it showed that it had a better performance compared to the standalone
J Intell Robot Syst
controller. Hybrid controller has also been cited to be able to give better result where dynamic of the system change considerably in its application [16, 17]. Model based control has been used in many medical robotic systems such as in Robodoc, robots for laparoscopic surgery, etc. Meanwhile PID control is also commonly used in wide range of applications due to its simplicity. The analysis of the test data showed favourable result, in which the accuracy, repeatability and stability of the robotic system were shown to be achieved within desirable limits. It was also observed that hybrid controller worked well for switching between different configurations. In order to establish the proposed control scheme, it would be desirable to evaluate systems with higher complexity for statistically large numbers of tests, especially for invasive type of medical robotic applications. It is also recommended that other control strategies such as fuzzy logic control to be combined for example with the modelbased control or to be added into the list of the parameterized family of controllers of the hybrid supervisory control [38]. The performance of different control combinations can be used as measurement parameters for establishing generic performance standards.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Ministry of Education, Singapore and Agency of Science Technology and Research, Singapore for jointly funding the project.
References
1. Camarillo, D.B., Krummel, T.M., Salisbury, J.K. Jr.: Robotic technology in surgery: past, present, and future. Am. J. Surg. 188, 2–15 (2009). doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2004.08.025
2. Taylor, R.H., Stoianovici, D.: Medical robotics in computerintegrated surgery. IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 19(5), 765–781 (2003). doi:10.1109/TRA.2003.817058
3. Cleary, K., Nguyen, C.: State of the art in surgical robotics: clinical applications and technology challenges. Comput. Aided Surg. 6(6), 312–340 (2001)
4. Swandito, G.G.N.: Kumar, Chauhan, S.: Control hierarchy of medical robotic systems for non invasive for surgery. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Biomedical Engi neering, Singapore (2005)
5. Mishra, R.K., Chauhan, S.: Safety of surgical robots: a fundamental aspect. In: Proceedings of the 12th ISMCR—Towards Advanced Robot Systems and Virtual Reality, Bourges, France (2002)
6. Kazanzides, P., Zuhars, J., Mittelstadt, B., Taylor, R.H.: Force sensing and control for a surgical robot. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Auto, Nice, France, pp. 612–617 (1992)
7. Kennedy, C.W., Desai, J.P.: Modelbased control of the Mitsubishi PA10 robot arm: application to robotassisted surgery. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Auto, New Orleans, LA, pp. 2523–2528 (2004)
8. Zemiti, N., Ortmaier, T., Morel, G.: A new robot for force control in minimally invasive surgery. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Sendai, Japan, pp. 3643–3648 (2004)
9. Gu, J.J., Meng, M., Cook, A., Faulkner, M.G., Liu, P.X.: Sensing and control of robotic prosthetic eye for ocular implant. In: Proceedings of the 26th IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Hawaii, USA, pp. 2166–2171 (2001)
10. Ginhoux, R., Ganglouf, J., Mathelin, M., Soler, L., Sanchez, M.M.A., Marescaux, J.: Active filtering of physiological motion in robotized surgery using predictive control. IEEE Trans. Robot. 21(1), 67–79 (2005). doi:10.1109/TRO.2004.833812
11. Zhu, W.H., Salcudean, S.E., Bachmann, S., Abolmaesumi, P.: Motion/force/image control of a diagnostic ultrasound robot. In: Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Auto, San Francisco, CA, pp. 1580–1585 (2000)
12. Ang, K.H., Chong, G., Yun, L.: PID control systems analysis, design, technology. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 13(4), 559–576 (2005). doi:10.1109/TCST.2005.847331
J Intell Robot Syst
13. Mishra, R.K.: FUSBOTBS: Technical Manual. Robotics Research Centre, Nanyang Technolog ical University, Singapore (2004)
14. Chauhan, S.: A HIFU medical robotic system for organotripsy and tissue ablation – the FUSBOT. In: Proceedings International Conference on Computing, Communication, and Con trol Technologies, Austin (Texas), USA (2004)
15. Whitcomb, L.L., Arimoto, S., Naniwa, T., Ozaki, F.: Adaptive modelbased hybrid control of geometrically constrained robot arms. IEEE Trans. Robot Autom. 13, 105–116 (1997)
16. Mills, J.K.: Hybrid control: A constrained motion perspective. J. Robot. Syst. 8(2), 135–158 (1991). doi:10.1002/rob.4620080202
17. Koutsoukos, X.D., Antsaklis, P.J., Stiver, J.A., Lemmon, M.D.: Supervisory control of hybrid systems. Proc. IEEE 88(7), 1026–1049 (2000). doi:10.1109/5.871307
18. Morse, A.S.: Control Using LogicBased Switching Trends in Control: A European Perspective, pp. 69–113. Springer, London (1995)
19. Enste, U., Epple, U.: Hybrid structure in process control. In: Proceedings of the American Control Conference, San Diego, California, pp. 4482–4485 (1999)
20. Astrom, K.J., Hagglund, T., Hang, C.C., Ho, W.K.: Automatic tuning and adaptation for PID controllers—a survey. Control Eng. Pract. 1(4), 699–714 (1993). doi:10.1016/0967–0661(93)
21. Shigemasa, T., Yukitomo, M., Kuwata, R. A model driven PID Control system and its case studies. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Control Application, Glasgow, UK, pp. 571–576 (2002)
22. Garcia, C.E., Carelli, R., Postigo, J.F., Soria, C.: Supervisory control for a telerobotic sys tem: a hybrid control approach. Control Eng. Pract. 11, 805–817 (2003). doi:10.1016/S0967
23. Cao, C.W.: Supervisory control of a class of hybrid dynamic systems. IEEE 22, 967–970 (1993)
24. Khalil, W., Kleinfinger, J.F.: A new geometric notation for open and closedloop robots. In:
Proceedings IEEE Conference on Robotics and Automation, San Francisco, CA, pp. 1174–1179
(1986)
25. Schilling, R.J.: Fundamentals of Robotics: Analysis and Control. PrenticeHall, Singapore (1990)
26. Kozlowski, K.: Modelling and Identification in Robotics: Advances in Industrial Control. Springer, Great Britain (1998)
27. Schiavicco, L., Siciliano, B.: Modelling and Control of Robot Manipulators. PrenticeHall, Singapore (2000)
28. Olsson, H., Astrom, K.J., De Wit, C.C., Gafvert, M., Lischinsky, P.: Friction models and friction compensation. Eur. J. Control. 4(3), 176–195 (1998)
29. Dupont, P., Armstrong, B., De Wit, C.C.: A survey of models, analysis tools and compensation methods for the control of machines with friction. Int. J. Autom. 30(7), 1083–1138 (1994).
30. De Wit, C.C., Lischinsky, P.: Adaptive friction compensation with partially known dynamic friction model. Int. J. Adapt Control Signal Process. 11, 65–80 (1997). doi:10.1002/(SICI)
31. The MathWorks Inc: US. MATLAB. http://www.mathworks.com (2007)
32. Gu, D.W., Petkov, P.H.R., Konstantinov, M.M.: Robust Control Design With MATLAB. Springer, London (2006)
33. Intellicam System: IntelliPIX. http://www.cctvdealers.com/ (2007)
34. Qu, Z.H.: Robust Control of Nonlinear Uncertain System. Wiley Series in Nonlinear Science. WileyInterscience, USA (1998)
35. Cadic, M.: Strongly robust adaptive control: the strong robustness approach. Dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Dutch Institute of Systems and Control (DISC) for graduate study, Twente University Press, The Netherlands (2003)
36. Shinners, S.M.: Advance Modern Control System Theory and Design. WileyInterscience, USA
(1998)
37. Galil Motion Controller, U.S.A.: Manuals and command references. http://www.galilmc.com/
(2005)
38. Mahfouf, M., Abbod, M.F., Linkens, D.A.: A survey of fuzzy logic monitoring and control utilisation in medicine. Artif. Intell. Med. 21, 27–42 (2001). doi:10.1016/S09333657(00)000725
Bien plus que des documents.
Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.
Annulez à tout moment.